Effects of Teaching Syllable Skills Instruction on Reading Achievement in Struggling Middle School Readers [Syllable Skills Instruction Curriculum (SSIC) vs. business as usual]
Diliberto, Jennifer A.; Beattie, John R.; Flowers, Claudia P.; Algozzine, Robert F. (2009). Literacy Research and Instruction, v48 n1 p14-27. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ822147
-
examining74Students, grades6-8
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Syllable Skills Instruction Curriculum (SSIC))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised cluster randomized controlled trial, but it satisfies the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Syllable Skills Instruction Curriculum (SSIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
93.60 |
83.94 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Syllable Skills Instruction Curriculum (SSIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.58 |
86.94 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
3% English language learners -
Female: 35%
Male: 65% -
Suburban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
North Carolina
-
Race Black 27% Other or unknown 12% White 61% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12% Not Hispanic or Latino 88%
Study Details
Setting
The study sample included students in grades six through eight from three middle schools in one school district in south-central North Carolina. All students were enrolled in remediation classes and were identified as having, or being at risk for, reading disabilities/difficulties.
Study sample
The authors provided sample characteristic information on the 83 students that were present at the time of random assignment. Sixty-five percent were male and 35 percent were female. Twenty-seven percent were African American, 12 percent were Hispanic, and 61 percent were White. Three percent were classified as having English as a second language. Thirty-seven percent of students were identified with a high incidence disability: 22 with a learning disability, 7 with other health impairment for ADHD, 12 with a mild mental disability, and 1 with a behavioral emotional disability. Thirty-seven students were classified as at risk for reading failure based on receiving a non-passing score on the North Carolina End-of-Grade reading exam for the previous school year. All students were enrolled in district-wide remediation classes for reading.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The scripted intervention, Syllable Skills Instruction Curriculum (SSIC), included 60 lessons involving four components: group review, new information, word reading, and written spelling. Each lesson took approximately 15 minutes. SSIC was supplemental to the core curriculum (Corrective Reading Program [CRP] or Success Maker) that all students received in their remediation classes. The study spanned 6 months. The only difference between the treatment and comparison conditions was the SSIC intervention.
Comparison Group
During the 6 months of the study, students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual core curriculum instruction in their remediation classes (either CRP or Success Maker).
Support for implementation
Participating teachers attended training for the CRP core curriculum prior to the start of the study. All teachers received professional development training on the SSIC intervention, which involved stating the purpose of the intervention as a supplement to CRP, understanding the lesson components and how to use the teacher manual and student workbooks, and modeling a lesson. Biweekly procedural reliability data was collected to assess consistency across teachers and lessons regarding SSIC and CRP.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).